We’ve been given some very interesting documents resulting from a Freedom of Information Act request: it seems like Teesside University were unhappy about their Professor Patrick Holford associating himself with the University’s (excellent) research on nutrition. (See Improbable Science for the FOIA documents.)

Tony Chapman (Teesside’s Assistant Dean for Enterprise) wrote to Holford on 24/8/07, to ask him to desist from referring to himself as “Visiting Professor in mental health and/or nutrition”. Chapman also asks Holford to make clear that he is in the School of Social Sciences and Law: Chapman informs Holford that

It would be helpful if you could refer to yourself as Visiting Professor in the School of Social Sciences and Law at the University of Teesside , rather than Visiting Professor, University of Teesside.

Going into more detail in a 6/9/07 memo, Chapman states that he and Holford “had a discussion about areas of expertise” (see Patrick Holford’s CV to get a sense of his level of nutritional expertise). As a result of this discussion,

Patrick has agreed not to refer to his position using the terms ‘mental health’ or ‘nutrition’. But will say that he is working with our ‘psychologists’.

Teesside then e-mailed Holford again on 7/9/07 in order to stress that he should not refer to himself as Visiting Professor in Mental Health and Nutrition.

We are glad that Teesside seem to be acknowledging Holford’s limited expertise in nutrition. However, we are finding it even harder to see why they believed it to be appropriate to offer Holford a Visiting Professorship.

Think Kudos are probably due to the *real* Teeside nutritionistal scientists and other biosci people. The obvious inference is that they have been raising Hell behind the scenes about PH being able to associate himself spuriously with them.

Which raises a further question. Who, one might ask, were Holford’s advocates within UoTeeside? It clearly wasn’t the nutrition people. So who was it?

As the case for support says “Food for the Brain
Foundation would fund the researcher a £12,500 per annum bursary. This joint working would help to secure the future of the Cactus Clinic – which has the potential to provide a cutting edge research laboratory for the University – after the retirement of Dr Woodhouse.”
Twelve and a half grand per annum, ffs, to sell your soul?
Is this really the current state of university research funding?

I don’t have any insider info on this question, but my students did a re-enactment of the appointments committee, based on the documents I got from David Colquhoun’s website.
The two sciencey committe members were against the appointment, but PH’s main advocate put forward the arguments that a) having such a high-profile visiting professor would be good for the university’s image, b) he is an expert in his field (look at all the books he’s published) and c) he would bring more funding to Teesside from his nutrition business.
Despite a good one-liner from the science side “Cure AIDS by eating an orange – what kind of expert is that?”, the committee chair was swayed by the financial argument, and gave the casting vote in favor.

Disclaimer

At the risk of sounding like Arthur Weasley, information on this blog is not intended as a substitute for advice from a qualified medical practitioner. If you have health concerns, see a Dr or dietician (a blog is not the place to diagnose a health problem).